On Point blog, page 1 of 6
Warrants – Overbreadth – John Doe Subpoena for Computer Records
Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, on reconsideration 2004 WI 149
Issue/Holding:
¶34. When we review a John Doe subpoena, a foundational issue may be constitutional in nature. For example, does the issuance of a subpoena in a John Doe proceeding, the sole purpose of such proceeding being to investigate alleged criminal activity, have the potential to affect Fourth Amendment rights?
Separation of Powers – Prosecutorial Veto and § 973.195, TIS Sentence Adjustment
State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass
For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The prosecutorial veto written into the TIS sentence-adjustment provision, § 973.195, is unconstitutional:
¶83 … “[S]hall” is interpreted as directory, thereby giving a circuit court discretion to accept or reject an objection from a district attorney on a petition for sentence adjustment under Wis.
Statements – Suppression: Electronic Recording — Juveniles
State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9
For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶58 … All custodial interrogation of juveniles in future cases shall be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. Audiotaping is sufficient to satisfy our requirement; however, videotaping may provide an even more complete picture of what transpired during the interrogation.
Postconviction Motions — § 974.06, Supports Interest-of-Justice Review by Supreme Court
State v. Ralph D. Armstrong, 2005 WI 119, reversing unpublished decision
For Armstrong: Jerome Buting; Barry Scheck
Issue/Holding: Supreme court has both statutory and inherent authority to order new trial in the interest of justice, even on collateral review (as opposed to direct appeal), ¶¶119-24. (State v. Allen, 159 Wis. 2d 53, 464 N.W.2d 426 (Ct. App. 1990) (court of appeals has no authority under § 752.35 to engage in no authority to undertake interest-of-justice review on collateral attack) severely questioned if not explicitly overruled.
Discovery – DNA Testing, at Defendant’s Own Expense, § 974.07(6)
State v. James M. Moran, 2005 WI 115, reversing unpublished decision
For Moran: Colleen D. Ball, State Bar Pro Bono Project
Issue/Holding:
¶3 We conclude that the plain language of § 974.07(6) gives a movant the right to conduct DNA testing of physical evidence that is in the actual or constructive possession of a government agency and that contains biological material or on which there is biological material,
Waiver of Argument: Constitutionality of Statute – Facial Challenge
State v. Thomas H. Bush (III), 2005 WI 103, reversing in part and affirming on the merits, 2004 WI App 193
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell
Issue/Holding: Although an “as applied” challenge to a statute may be waived, a facial challenge, in contradistinction, is not waivable, ¶17:
¶18 This rule is also entirely consistent with our line of cases that recognize that a criminal complaint which fails to allege any offense known at law is jurisdictionally defective and void.
Standards of Review: Administrative Decision – Certiorari, de novo in part
State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order
For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella
Issue/Holding:
¶13. Certiorari review for parole revocation is limited to four questions: “(1) whether the agency stayed within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable, representing its will, not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question.”
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Test, Generally
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73<
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose
Issue/Holding:
¶40 The test for this harmless error was set forth by the Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh’g denied, 386 U.S.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Test – Confrontation
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose
Issue/Holding: Confrontation error deemed harmful, where the following evinced the tainted evidence’s impact: prosecutor’s litigation strategy, ¶51; jury’s reaction (which included repeated requests to have tainted testimony read back;
Sentence Modification: New Factor — TIS-II, Reduced Penalty In Relation to TIS-I (Unclassified Felony) Sentence, Not New Factor
State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶2 We conclude, based on our holding in State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, that the reduced maximum confinement penalties under TIS-II do not constitute new factors when a defendant such as Tucker moves for the modification of sentences imposed under TIS-I.